Musar for Pesachim 47:10

אלא אמר רב פפא מהכא (ויקרא ז, יט) והבשר אשר יגע בכל טמא לא יאכל באש ישרף שאין תלמוד לומר לא יאכל מה תלמוד לומר לא יאכל

but reverse [the argument]: for let Scripture write, 'it shall be burnt with fire,' so that 'it shall not be eaten' will be superfluous; why then is 'it shall not be eaten' written? If it i irrelevant for itself, seeing that it is deduced by R'Eleazar's [exegesis],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without R. Eleazar's deduction, 'it shall not be eaten' would be necessary in spite of the statement 'it shall be burnt with fire', to show that it is subject to a negative injunction, which involves flagellation. But now that R. Eleazar has deduced a negative injunction in respect of all unfit sacrifices from, 'it shalt not be eaten because it is holy', this is superfluous.');">¹⁵</span> apply its teaching to all [other] interdicts of the Torah.

Shenei Luchot HaBerit